JAYESHBHAI NATWARBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     C/SCA/6438/2025                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6438 of 2025


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================

            Approved for Reporting                   Yes          No
                                                      ✔
================================================================
                       JAYESHBHAI NATWARBHAI PATEL & ORS.
                                     Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RR MARSHAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR DAIFRAZ
HAVEWALLA(3982) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,10,15,16,17,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
PETITION/APPEAL WITHDRAWN/DISMISSED for the Petitioner(s) No.
11,12,13,14,18
MS MANISHA LUVKUMAR SHAH, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL,
WITH MR KRUTIK PARIKH, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR BAIJU JOSHI(1207) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR. DHRUV D CHALIYAWALA(14081) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR. HARSHIL K. PATEL(18158) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                                 Date : 08/05/2026

                                   JUDGMENT


1.      RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr. Krutik Parikh, waives service of notice of Rule for and on
behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned counsel Mr. Harshil
Patel, waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the
respondent No.3 and learned counsel Mr. Baiju Joshi, waives service of
notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.4.




                                     Page 1 of 17
     C/SCA/6438/2025                               JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




2.      With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the
matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.


3.      By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India read with the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies
Act, 1961 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”), petitioners have
prayed for the following reliefs :


        “9(A) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to admit and allow this
        petition.

        (B) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue writ of Certiorari or Writ
        in the nature of Certiorari, or any other Writ, Order or Direction
        quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 16.04.2025
        (Annexure A) issued by the respondent no.2 and thereby direct the
        respondent authorities to drop the proceedings instituted against the
        petitioners pursuant to impugned notice;

        (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition,
        YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to stay implementation, operation
        and execution of the further proceedings in connection with the
        impugned notice both dated 16.04.2025 (Annexure A) issued by the
        respondent no.2.

        (D) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to pass such other order and
        further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of
        justice.”


4.      Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
Sonsak Group Cooperative Cotton Sale Society Limited, (herein after
be referred to as ‘the Society’), Olpad, District Surat, is a cooperative
Society registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative
Societies Act, 1961 and was registered under Registration No. 3384
on 09.05.1921. It is the case of the petitioners that, the petitioners
are serving as Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Committee Members of
the said Society and have been conducting the affairs of the Society



                                  Page 2 of 17
      C/SCA/6438/2025                            JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




in an honest, diligent, and transparent manner since their respective
appointments.


4.1      That, on 27.07.2024, the Society received a letter regarding the
audit of the Society for the period from 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024,
wherein, it was indicated that certain discrepancies were observed
during the audit and the Society was directed to rectify the same and
submit a corrected report to the Special Auditor, Cooperative
Societies, within two months. That, upon receipt of the aforesaid
communication, a meeting of the Administrative Committee was held
on 30.09.2024, wherein it was decided to conduct a stock inspection
of the Jahangirpura Branch and therefore, an inspection was carried
out on 02.10.2024, however, no irregularities were found.


4.2      That, subsequently, between 03.10.2024 and 08.10.2024 stock
inspection at the Olpad Centre was carried out, during which, certain
irregularities were discovered and it was found that the ex-Manager
had misappropriated the funds of the Society and accordingly, on
10.10.2024, the Society decided to initiate legal proceedings against
the said individual. That, on 01.01.2025, the Society issued
communications to its members, directing them to deposit the
outstanding dues reflected against their names in the Society's
records and in response thereto, certain members approached the
Society and submitted that they had not taken any loans or advances
from the Society and therefore, no dues were outstanding against
them. That, these communications were received around the end of
the first week of January, 2025.


4.3      That, on 09.01.2025, the In-charge Manager of the Society, Shri


                                 Page 3 of 17
      C/SCA/6438/2025                          JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




Sukhdev Bhai Gangaram Bhai Patel, submitted an application before
the Police Inspector, Olpad Police Station, Surat, against three
accused persons, namely, 1. Paresh Kumar Ranjitsinh Thakur (Ex-
Manager), 2. Vishwajeet Singh Rajendrasinh Solanki (Ex-Clerk), and 3.
Mayur Kumar Vijaybhai Patel (Clerk), for offences of criminal breach of
trust and cheating under the relevant provisions of the Bhartiya Nyay
Sanhita, 2023 and in connection with the said complaint, the Police
Inspector, Olpad Police Station, Surat, vide communication dated
12.01.2025, called for an inquiry report from the District Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Surat. That, in the meantime, the District
Registrar appointed Shri S.M. Choksi, Auditor Grade-II, to conduct an
inspection under Section 88 of the Act and the said auditor intimated
the Society that the inspection would be conducted on 31.01.2025.


4.4      That, the auditor thereafter, visited the Society, and the
petitioners provided all documents and information sought during the
course of the inspection. To the best of the petitioners' knowledge,
the auditor submitted his report dated 27.03.2025 to the District
Registrar, but no copy of the said report has been furnished to the
petitioners till date. That, thereafter, on 08.04.2025, the District
Registrar issued a show cause notice to the present petitioners under
Section 81 of the Act, directing them to show cause as to why the
Committee should not be superseded and an Administrator appointed
to manage the affairs of the Society, which was challenged by the
petitioners before this Court by way of filing Special Civil Application
No. 5897 of 2025. That, thereafter, the petitioners received the
impugned show-cause notice dated 16.04.2025 issued by the
respondent No.2 issued under Section 93 of the Act for no fault on
their part.


                               Page 4 of 17
     C/SCA/6438/2025                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




5.      Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the inaction on the
part of the respondent No.2, the present petition is preferred.


6.      Heard Mr. R.R. Marshal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Daifraz Havewalla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners, Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Additional Advocate
General assisted by Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned
counsel Mr. Harshil Patel, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3
and learned counsel Mr. Baiju Joshi, appearing on behalf of the
respondent No.4.


7.      Learned senior counsel Mr. Marshal has submitted that the
impugned show-cause notice dated 16.04.2025 issued by the
respondent         No.2   District   Registrar,     Surat   contains       certain
eventualities as stated in the said notice that during the terms of the
present petitioners, the Chairman and other office bearers of the
Committee had misappropriated the funds to the tune of Rs.
58,40,346.70ps. and they had not taken care to safe-guard the
interest of the Society. He has submitted that though 65 agriculturists
have not actually taken any loan, the same was credited and because
of that, the said 65 agriculturists were unable to get further additional
financial benefits from the Society and this transaction was done
behind the back of the said 65 agriculturists and thereby, they have
deprived of those beneficiaries / agriculturists and there were other
financial misappropriation during the period from 2021 to 2022. He
has further submitted that it was also mentioned in the said show-
cause notice that, though serious allegations were made against


                                     Page 5 of 17
      C/SCA/6438/2025                          JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




these office bearers, the Committee had accepted the resignation of
those office bearers without taking any action against them.


7.1      Learned senior counsel Mr. Marshal has submitted that the
impugned show-cause notice is illegal, arbitrary and unjust as the
petitioners have not committed any irregularity as alleged in the said
show-cause notice issued by the respondent No.2. He has submitted
that the In-charge Manager has filed criminal complaint with the
Olpad Police Station against the concerned persons against whom
allegations of malpractice and irregularities were made and the same
was also investigated by the concerned jurisdictional police and for
the said financial irregularities, the whole committee cannot be held
responsible. He has submitted that in fact, for the year 2023-2024,
the audit was carried out and the auditor has audited the accounts of
the Society and the auditor has not assigned any irregularities against
the present petitioners, on the contrary, the auditor has marked his
remarks that everything is in accordance with the provisions of the
audit report and no irregularities were found and therefore, the show-
cause notice itself is bad in law and against the settled legal
principles. He has further submitted that the show-cause notice was
issued against all the elected members of the Society and thus, the
respondent No.2 has acted in mala fide and arbitrary manner in the
hands of the ruling party by issuing the impugned show-cause notice.
Learned senior counsel Mr. Marshal has emphasized upon the remarks
made by the auditor in the audit report prepared while carrying out
the audit of the accounts of the Society and submitted that for the so-
called illegalities or irregularities, the petitioners have initiated
criminal proceedings against the erring officers and they have acted
in the benefits and interest of the members at large and there is no


                               Page 6 of 17
     C/SCA/6438/2025                            JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




illegality committed by the present petitioners. He has submitted that
this Court while issuing notice has passed the order that there shall be
no stay of the proceedings before the respondent No.2 – District
Registrar, Surat pending the present petition and no final order shall
be passed pursuant to the show-cause notice till the next date of
hearing. In view of the said order, learned senior counsel Mr. Marshal
has submitted that, so far as the maintainability of the present
petition is concerned, the respondent authority cannot raise any
contention with regard to the maintainability as this Court has
entertained this petition and issued notice meaning thereby, that this
Court was inclined to issue notice and grant interim relief in favour of
the petitioners and therefore, the petition deserves to be entertained
and the interference of this Court at this stage is required. Over and
above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned senior
counsel Mr. Marshal has urged that the present petition be allowed
and the impugned show-cause notice issued by the respondent No.2
be quashed and set aside.


8.      On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General Ms.
Manisha Lavkumar Shah, appearing on behalf of the respondent
authorities, has submitted that under the settled legal proposition of
law as decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, the
writ petition invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India challenging the show-cause notice is not maintainable and
therefore, the present petition is required to be dismissed. She has
submitted that the present petition is at pre-mature stage as, merely
a show-cause notice has been issued by the respondent authority
under the provisions of Section 93 of the Act for the alleged
misappropriation of funds during the tenure of elected committee


                                Page 7 of 17
      C/SCA/6438/2025                           JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




members of the Society and therefore, at this stage, the present
petition is not required to be entertained by exercising jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution. She has submitted that the
petitioner has not raised any dispute with regard to the jurisdiction of
the respondent No.2 for issuance of any show-cause notice under
Section 93 of the Act in the present petition. She has submitted that it
is also relevant to note herein that out of 18 committee members, 5
committee members have approached the statutory authority by
availing alternative efficacious remedy of filing appeal before the
Additional Registrar (Appeals), Co-operative Societies, Gandhinagar
and qua those 5 members, the present petition came to be dismissed,
however, the present petitioners, without approaching the Appellate
Authority, have directly preferred this petition, which is not
maintainable, as it is now well settled that against the show-cause
notice, the Court in exceptional circumstances only can consider and
interfere at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice and herein the
present case, the petitioners have not shown any exceptional
circumstance and therefore, the petitioners are also required to be
relegated before the Appellate Authority. She has submitted that the
petitioners have alterative efficacious remedy available to challenge
the show-cause notice issued by the respondent No.2 under Section
93 of the Act before Additional Registrar (Appeals), Co-operative
Societies, Gandhinagar and therefore this Court would be very slow in
exercising the extraordinary powers, especially when the petitioners
have alternative remedy available in the eye of law and therefore, the
present petition is required to be dismissed.


8.1      In support of her submissions, learned AAG Ms. Shah has
referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in


                               Page 8 of 17
   C/SCA/6438/2025                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




similar set of facts in case of Registrar, Co Operative Societies vs.
Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary, reported in 2019 (0) AIJEL-HC 241296,
wherein, this Court has dismissed the petition filed challenging the
show-cause notice issued under Section 93 of the Act. The relevant
observations made by this Court in paras-14, 17 and 18, which are
reproduced hereunder :


      “14. Looked at from the point of view of the recognized principles of grant
      of interim injunctions i.e prima-facie case/balance of convenience and
      irreparable injury, when the facts are seen, it is evident that even though
      the Inquiry Officer is appointed on 01.09.2018 and before the issuance of a
      charge sheet he is bound to follow the procedural aspect of following the
      principles of natural justice and then frame charges which would ultimately
      be the foundation of the order under Section 93 of the Act, he has hastened
      to close the doors on the respondent, when even he himself had expressed
      a handicap of having insufficient material to frame the charge. In the
      eventuality together with the rojkam recorded on 02.01.2019 which is
      contrary to the facts that unfolded, a predetermined exercise appears
      apparent and therefore in the event of an order under Section 93, in
      absence of material, even as per the Inquiry Officer’s version would go to
      the root of the matter and to leave the respondent to challenge the legality
      of such process after the order is to present a fait accompli and definitely
      will cause serious prejudice to the Respondent. In this event, the order of
      the Tribunal cannot be faulted. The Tribunal, in the background and the
      events narrated hereinabove appears to have acted in accordance with the
      discretion vested in it and the order cannot be said to be capricious or so
      ex-facie illegal and that too an ex-parte ad-interim order that would warrant
      interference at the hands of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
      Of India.

      17. In context of the State having filed the petition in June 2019 after
      having repeatedly sought time before the Tribunal for filing a reply and
      thereby not coming with full disclosure of facts of having participated
      before the Tribunal is evident from the Rojkam produced by the respondent
      in its Affidavit. From the Rojkam it appears that time was sought to file
      reply, the Tribunal thereafter adjourned the hearing, extended the stay with
      consent and almost 7 months after an ex-parte order having lived, the
      challenge is questioned by the State without going to the Tribunal for a
      hearing on merits. I may not agree with Mr. Joshi’s submission that such a
      conduct would amount to suppression of facts. However, had the State on
      the basis of the pleadings secured an ex-parte order from this Court,
      without such full disclosure, it could have been held as a circumstance
      against the State.

      17.1 However, the State instead of responding to the order on merits
      waited for 7 months to come forth and challenge the ex-parte ad interim


                                   Page 9 of 17
      C/SCA/6438/2025                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




         order. What is required to be borne in mind that the Tribunal has not stayed
         the inquiry in toto. What the Tribunal has directed is that the inquiry should
         progress only after granting appropriate copies and after following the
         principles of natural justice. The issue is yet writ large before the Tribunal.
         The Tribunal on the facts has only passed an ex-parte order of injunction,
         though conditional and in the facts of the case it cannot be said to be so
         patently or grossly illegal or whimsical or capricious so as to warrant
         interference at the hands of this Court in a Petition under Article 226 of the
         Constitution Of India.

         18. With regard to the applicability of the judgements cited at the Bar and
         relied upon by the Tribunal, I express no opinion at this stage and the view
         expressed hereinabove on the facts are only limited to the testing of the
         legality and validity of the Tribunal’s ex-parte ad interim order and the
         parties are at liberty to place their submissions and it is for the Tribunal
         after the considering all the submissions of the parties including the
         petitioner to pass an appropriate order after hearing both the parties on the
         question of interim relief in the pending Revision.”


8.2      So far as the contention with regard to non-maintainability of
the present petition is concerned, learned AAG Ms. Shah has referred
to and relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in similar set of
facts in case of Bharatbhai Maganbhai Patel vs. Director
(Sugar), reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL-HC 251916, more particularly,
the observations made in paras-12 and 18, which are reproduced
hereunder :


         “12. So as to decide the aforesaid question, first and foremost thing is to
         go through the provision of Section 93 of the Act very carefully. Section 93
         of the Act reads, thus;

                 "93. Power of Registrar to assess damages against delinquent,
                 promoters, etc.:

                 (1) Where, in the course of or as a result of an audit under Section
                 84, or an inquiry under Section 86 or an inspection under Section
                 87, or the winding up of a society, the Registrar may satisfied on the
                 basis of the report made by the auditor or the person authorised to
                 make inquiry under Section 86, or the person authorised to inspect
                 the books under Section 87, or the Liquidator under Section 110,
                 that any person who has taken any part, in the organisation or
                 undefined management of the society or any deceased, or past or
                 present officer of the society has, within a period of five years prior
                 to the date of such audit, inquiry, inspection or order for winding up,
                 misapplied or retained, or become liable or accountable for, any


                                       Page 10 of 17
     C/SCA/6438/2025                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




                money or property of the society, or has been guilty of misfeasance
                or breach of trust in relation to the society, the Registrar or a person
                authorised by him in that behalf may investigate the conduct of
                such person or persons and after framing charges against such
                person or persons, and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the
                person concerned and in the case of a deceased person to him
                representative who inherits his estate, to answer the charges, make
                an order requiring him to repay or restore the money or property or
                any part thereof, with interest at such rate as the Registrar or the
                person authorised under this section may determine, or to
                contribute such sum to the assets of the society by way of
                compensation in regard to the misapplication, retention,
                misfeasance or breach of trust, as he may determine.

                (2) The Registrar or the person authorised under sub-section (1) in
                making any order under this section, may provide therein for the
                payment of the costs or any part thereof of such investigation, as he
                thinks just, and he may direct that such costs or any part thereof
                shall be recovered from the person against whom the order has
                been issued.

                (3) This section shall apply, notwithstanding that the act is one for
                which the person concerned may be criminally responsible".

        18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not having slightest
        doubt in the mind that the respondent No.1 has committed blatant illegality
        insofar as issuing notice upon the petitioners at the stage of taking decision
        to authorise the officer to hold inquiry under Section 93 of the Act.
        Therefore, the practice adopted of issuing show cause notice and holding
        pre-inquiry by the respondent No.1 at the administrative stage is highly
        deprecated. The respondent No.1, therefore, in my view, could not have
        introduced any such inquiry and / or practice by issuing the show cause
        notice prior to holding an inquiry under Section 93 and/or authorizing
        person to hold an inquiry being not approved by the provisions of law.”


9.      It appears from the record that during the pendency of the
present petition, one Nimeshbhai Naginbhai Patel has preferred civil
application before this Court for joining as party respondent No.4 in
the present proceedings, as he is the torch bearer and upon whose
complaint, the proceedings had been initiated. In the said application,
the original petitioners – respondents therein, have filed their
affidavit-in-reply objecting the civil application for joining as party
respondent. However, after considering the reported decision of this
Court, the said civil application came to be allowed by this Court vide


                                      Page 11 of 17
      C/SCA/6438/2025                           JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




order dated 23.03.2026 and the said Nimeshbhai Naginbhai Patel was
joined as party respondent No.4, who is represented through learned
counsel Mr. Baiju Joshi. Learned counsel Mr. Baiju Joshi, appearing on
behalf of the newly added party respondent No.4, has submitted that
the respondent No.4 is the torch bearer and he has pointed out the
alleged illegalities and because of these illegalities, an illegal entry
was posted in the Register that 65 agriculturists had obtained loan
from the Society, in fact, neither they had applied for any loan nor
they were aware about the fact that loan has been credited in their
names and those who were the beneficiaries because of the earlier
loan transactions shown in the names of the agriculturists, were
restrained from obtaining any loan in future as they had been shown
as debtors of the Society, though they had not obtained any financial
assistance from the Society, however, because of this fraudulent
transaction, they have been restrained by the fraudulent act of the
erring officers of the Society and therefore, under such circumstances,
the petitioner deserves to be dismissed, as it is at pre-mature stage.


10.      I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. The issue involved
in the present petition is that, whether at the stage of issuance of
show-cause notice without availing the statutory remedy available
under the statute itself, by way of filing petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, extraordinary jurisdiction is required to be
exercised by this Court or not and whetter the Court can interfere with
at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice or not. It appears from
the record that the petitioners have challenged the show-cause notice
dated 16.04.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 93 of
the Act for alleged breach of misappropriation of funds during the


                                Page 12 of 17
   C/SCA/6438/2025                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




tenure as elected committee member of the Society. It also emerges
that there is no stay against the proceedings initiated by the
respondent No.2 under Section 93 of the Act. On the foregoing above
referred facts and submissions of the parties and after considering the
submissions advanced by both the sides, the provisions of Section 93
of the Act are required to be looked into first, which is reproduced
hereunder :


      “Section 93 : Power of Registrar to assess damages against
      delinquent, promoters, etc.

      (1) Where, in the course of or as a result of an audit under Section
      84, or an inquiry under Section 86 or an inspection under Section 87,
      or the winding up of a society, the Registrar may satisfied on the
      basis of the report made by the auditor or the person authorised to
      make inquiry under Section 86, or the person authorised to inspect
      the books under Section 87, or the Liquidator under Section 110, that
      any person who has taken any part, in the organisation or
      management of the society or any deceased, or past or present
      officer of the society has, within a period of five years prior to the
      date of such audit, inquiry, inspection or order for winding up,
      misapplied or retained, or become liable or accountable for, any
      money or property of the society, or has been guilty of misfeasance
      or breach of trust in relation to the society, the Registrar or a person
      authorised by him in that behalf may investigate the conduct of such
      person or persons and after framing charges against such person or
      persons, and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the person
      concerned and in the case of a deceased person to him
      representative who inherits his estate, to answer the charges, make
      an order requiring him to repay or restore the money or property or
      any part thereof, with interest at such rate as the Registrar or the
      person authorised under this section may determine, or to contribute
      such sum to the assets of the society by way of compensation in
      regard to the misapplication, retention, misfeasance or breach of
      trust, as he may determine.

      (2) The Registrar or the person authorised under sub- section (1) in
      making any order under this section, may provide therein for the
      payment of the costs or any part thereof of such investigation, as he
      thinks just, and he may direct that such costs or any part thereof
      shall be recovered from the person against whom the order has been
      issued.


                                 Page 13 of 17
      C/SCA/6438/2025                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




         (3) This section shall apply, notwithstanding that the act is one for
         which the person concerned may be criminally responsible.”

11.      From the provisions as referred hereinabove, it is pre-requisite
condition of initiation of proceedings under Section 93 of the Act to
have an inspection carried out under Section 88 of the Act, and in the
present case, an inquiry was undertaken by an Inquiry Officer of
Auditor Grade-II, Co-operative Societies on 27.03.2025, whereby, the
inquiry officer had recommended to initiate proceedings under
Section 93 of the Act against the elected committee members with
regard to the misappropriation of funds for the period between
01.04.2020 to 31.03.2024. It also emerges from the record that, the
Inquiry Report under Section 93 of the Act, which forms the basis of
the issuance of the show-cause notice, is never challenged by the
petitioners in the present petition or before any competent forum. On
perusal of the Inquiry Report, show-cause notice under Section 93 of
the Act came to be issued to all the elected committee members to
show cause as to why the proceedings under Section 93 of the Act
should       not        be   initiated   against     the   petitioners    for   alleged
misappropriation of funds of the Society.


12.      While exercising jurisdiction under Section 93(1) of the Act, the
authority initially initiated enquiry under Section 84 and after
considering the report under Section 84, the authority has issued the
show-cause notice under Section 93 of the Act, which is yet to be
decided finally because, until and unless the explanation is rendered
by the concerned member before the authority who has issued the
show-cause notice, after hearing the concerned parties, the final order
is to be passed, against which, there is a statutory alternative



                                         Page 14 of 17
      C/SCA/6438/2025                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




efficacious remedy available under the statute and therefore, when
there is a statutory alternative remedy available to the present
petitioner, I am of the opinion that at the stage of issuance of show-
cause notice, the Court cannot interfere with such show-cause notice
only on the apprehension that the respondent authority will act in
arbitrary manner and will pass the order without considering the
submissions of the concerned. A notice to show cause is calling upon
a person to explain the discrepancies / illegalities shown in the show-
cause notice and if the authority is satisfied with the explanation
rendered by the concerned, the authority will withdraw such show-
cause notice and therefore, under such circumstances, it is a pre-
mature stage when the Court can interfere with while exercising
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, which
in my opinion is without being any cogent reasons merely by showing
in anticipation that the authority will exercise and act in a pre-judicial
manner, the Court cannot interfere with the same. Moreover, in view
of the recent decision of this Court in case of Bharatbhai
Maganbhai Patel (Supra), which is confirmed by the Division Bench
of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1055 of 2025 decided on
09.09.2025, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to
be dismissed as there is no any illegality or any irregularity found in
the impugned show-cause notice issued under Section 93 of the Act.


13.      On perusal of the record and after going through the
submissions canvassed by both the sides, it is also relevant to note
herein that some of the members of the Society have already availed
the alternative efficacious remedy available under the statute by way
of preferring appeal before the competent forum being Additional
Registrar       (Appeals),   Co-Operative      Societies,   Gandhinagar        and


                                   Page 15 of 17
      C/SCA/6438/2025                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




therefore also, present petition deserves to be dismissed. So far as
the contention raised by the learned senior counsel Mr. Marshal for
the petitioner that there cannot be any dispute with regard to
maintainability is concerned, the facts of the present case are
materially different, as in the case on hand, some of the committee
members have already availed alternative efficacious remedy
available under the statute and therefore, there cannot be any
discrimination and therefore also, present petition is required to be
dismissed.


14.      At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision
of this Court rendered in case of Kheda District Cooperative
Purchase and Sales Union Ltd. vs. J.P. Gupta and Others,
reported in [2014] LawSuit Guj. 686, more particularly, the
observations made in para-6, which is reproduced hereunder :


         “6. Being a petition directed against the show cause notice, I am not
         inclined to interfere at this stage. The petitioner would have full
         opportunity to refute all the allegations made in the show cause
         notice as also opportunity to produce such material as may be
         desired. It would be only thereupon that the authority would take a
         final decision whether to drop the show cause notice or to pass any
         order in terms of Section 93 of the Act. At this stage, it is not possible
         to exonerate petitioner No.2 of any possible action under Section
         93(1) of the Act. The language used therein is very wide and the
         adverse consequence envisaged therein would follow against any
         person who has taken any part in the organization or management of
         the society within five years prior to the date of the audit, inquiry,
         inspection and it is found that he has been guilty of misfeasance or
         breach of trust in relation to the society. Any action of course has to
         be preceded by granting of reasonable opportunity to the person
         concerned. Whether the expenditure was authorized by the society,
         whether the petitioner was guilty of any misfeasance or breach of
         trust in relation to the society and while incurring such expenditure
         which must be gone into after permitting the petitioner to file his full
         reply.”



                                     Page 16 of 17
        C/SCA/6438/2025                                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026




15.        Moreover, the judgment rendered by this Court in case of
Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary (Supra) has been confirmed by the
Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 779 of
2017, wherein the Division Bench has confirmed the decision of the
learned Single Judge and in view thereof, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the impugned show-cause notice issued under Section
93 of the Act merely on the ground of any mala fide or any arbitrary.


16.        In the result, the present petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is
discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any,
granted earlier, stands vacated forthwith.



                                                                    (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)



                                            FURTHER ORDER


           Learned senior counsel Mr. Marshal has requested that the
interim relief may be extended for a further period of four weeks.


           No case is made out for extension of the interim relief and
therefore, the request made by the learned senior counsel Mr.
Marshall is hereby refused.


                                                                    (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)


Dolly




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: DOLLYBEN CHETANBHAI VADUKAR(HC01392), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 08/05/2026 15:52:07


                                                   Page 17 of 17